Yes, but Federal laws are impersonally hegemonic as adopted by majority vote. They are the rules that govern hegemony that serves the general public.
And there is a distinct difference between Trump and Biden in regard to obeying the hegemony of the law.
Juries are not hegemonic, they are selected and approved by both parties.
Their judgement is based on impersonal legal fact, not on the defendant’s individual beliefs or legal strategy. In a court of law , the law is hegemonic, not the person.
Trump declared and demonstrates his hegemonic immunity from prevailing law, Biden declared and demonstrates his hegemonic obedience to prevailing law.
I know what dotard means. You don’t have to be dramatic. Why do you think I use it to mean that orange creature? Because that is what the orange creature is- a dotard. President Biden is NOT a dotard.
Right and again, you really misinterpret things. The dotard is going after the law because it does not suit his purpose and he’s a yentaru (Betazoid for baby of humongous size). He doesn’t want to believe he broke the law and he doesn’t want his minions believing it either, but he broke the law.
After that, the rest of what you said isn’t worth reading especially when you go into dramatics and attempt to make something fit what you want, such as the word dotard. You just can’t see how your creature fits the definition and you don’t want to see it. Even the leader of South Korea (or was it North? doesn’t matter) called that orange creature a dotard.
There is disobedience (perceived immunity) by Trump/MAGA, or obedience ( perceived subject) by Biden/Democracy, to common Law.
International Law in Times of Hegemony: Unequal Power and the Shaping of the International Legal Order,
Abstract
Hegemony and international law are often regarded as irreconcilable: international law is widely assumed to depend on a balance of power and to be eschewed by hegemons in favour of political tools.
This corresponds to an often idealized contrast between international law and international politics, one reflecting reason and justice, the other brute power. Realists and critical legal scholars have long sought to counter this idealization, but often by merely reducing international law to power.
This article seeks to go beyond these positions by analysing the multiple ways in which dominant states interact with international law. Drawing on international relations theory, it develops a model of this interaction and illustrates it with historical examples, taken mainly from Spanish, British and American phases of dominance.
The typical pattern observed is one of instrumentalization and withdrawal, coupled with attempts at reshaping international law in a more hierarchical way and at replacing it with domestic legal tools that better accommodate formal hierarchies. The resulting picture should provide a starting point for critique and help us better understand why international law is simultaneously instrumental and resistant to the pursuit of power.
International law is important for powerful states as a source of legitimacy, but in order to provide legitimacy, it needs to distance itself from power and has to resist its mere translation into law. International law then occupies an always precarious, but eventually secure position between the demands of the powerful and the ideals of justice held in international society.
and
Hegemony in International Law,
Introduction
In international politics, hegemony refers to dominance or authority exercised by one state or group of states over others. Hegemony is simultaneously material, ideational, and relational. Hegemonic states typically enjoy a preponderance of material capabilities, both military and economic. They also establish the legitimacy of a particular type of international order, regional or global, that reflects and reinforces their national values and interests.
Hegemonic states establish and maintain the rules of the international game. But hegemony is not simply coercive; it also implies a meaningful degree of acquiescence on the part of other major states in the system. Hegemony involves authority; the dominant state exercises it and other states at least to some degree accept it. Leaders need followers or collaborators. Hegemony works best when other states accept the leading role of the hegemonic state and view the order it has created as beneficial and desirable
Except that Kim Jong Un wrote Trump a “love letter” and they are “best friends” and “enemies” of the US.
Read the ‘Love Letters’ Donald Trump Traded with North Korean Dictator Kim Jong Un
“You will be the one to lead,” the president once wrote to Kim. “It will be historic!”
The Trump-Kim letters — two of which Trump has alreadytweeted, one from him and one from Kim — further detail what the North Korean leader reportedly described as “a special friendship” that has grown between them since they held a historic face-to-face meeting in Singapore in June 2018.
And therein lies my problem- the fact he wrote the dotard a love letter, but then again, the dotard is stupid enough to be bed buddies with Putin and Kim.
I want more evidence than a Russian news clip that someone has to translate and I have take their word on the translation when I don’t even know them well enough to trust them.
And even if that is true, what are you talking about?
What are these ships going to do that is a threat to the US? Shoot at the US?
The US is not invading a South or Central American country that needs Russia’s help to resist US aggression.
No South American country needs to be afraid of the US. The US has no military presence where it is not wanted.
In fact the US has become a haven for millions of oppressed peoples emigrating (fleeing) from Europe, or South and Central America .
I see no one escaping from any country to Russia or No Korea for safety from oppression.
OTOH, Ukraine does need US help defending against Russian aggression, Russia is actively shooting at and killing Ukrainians.
Let me remind you that NATO is a defensive organization against “common enemies”. whereas Russia is the common enemy, as demonstrated by its genocidal actions against Ukraine.
All Eastern European countries are afraid of Russia. Their historical association with Communist Russia is still remembered, as you should consider before spreading misinformation.
No one needs to be afraid of the US. But they do need to respect US military might.
Miscalculation of US resolve by any foe, is at their mortal peril.